Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 July 11 July >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMPULSE (Database by CACI)[edit]

IMPULSE (Database by CACI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Contested" prod (endorsed by another editor). Appears to be non-notable piece of software. Article unsourced except for a couple of links to subject's website. Reads like advert. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:N and WP:V (lack of secondary sources). This article falls just short of db-g11. (If I recall, I was the one who supported the original prod tag.) elektrikSHOOS 08:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an Oracle based database system with a central core of data on pupils, establishments, assessment results, benchmarking, contextual data and financial data. It is Around the core are a number of modules for provision of operational systems like SEN, FSM, Transport and so on. The system comes with all necessary standard and statutory reports, including Form 7 in all of its variations. This is also borderline patent nonsense; this swatch of text lacks enough context to enable any not familiar with the field (U.S. educational bureaucracy?) to learn anything from it. And, as noted, it's unambiguous advertising for a product with a small market, and this software product contains no indication of historical, technical, or cultural significance, and as such lacks "long term historical notability". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheba Akhtar[edit]

Sheba Akhtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable Pakistani architect and writer. Article is almost completely unsourced, with the few that do mention the subject only do so in passing. The other links are irrelevant to the subject (links to educational institutions). Only real claim is to have published a book, Of Colour and Form, with the Foundation for Museum of Modern Art (see here). The book is not notable at all as far as I can see. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already speedily deleted by R'n'B per G7 (author requested deletion). Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party Nepal[edit]

Pirate Party Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, and furthermore likely non-existant IRL. Google search gives nothing except wikipedia and facebook. Article claims a membership of 11, facebook page has 9 members. The name in Nepali is quite suspicious to me "Samudri Daka" literally means "Sea Pirate"/"Sea Robber", not "Pirate" in general. Soman (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just sent request to the .np TLD domain registry regarding registration of pirateparty.org.np. We have been waiting for that domain to set our web presence there. I have also been in contact with Gregory Engels of Pirate Parties International regarding affiliation with them. The problem with being a small initiative, specially in a developing country like Nepal is getting relevant press coverage to establish prominence. I am in contact with a few notable media houses in Nepal, and they are positive. I will post links to them as soon as I get them. In the mean time, if necessary, would it be possible to set this article as a draft rather than deletion? That way, I can keep working on this article while not loosing the work already put into it. Let me know. Also, thanks for your help with this. I really appropriate your help and your patience :) Prameya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.137.83 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd suggest you save the current article data in a word document. Once there is coverage by different prominent newsmedia, re-upload with those references. --Soman (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to userfy the article till there are enough external references (should be there shortly) --Dichter (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a copy of this article here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prameya/Pirate_Party_of_Nepal. Ok for deletion for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prameya (talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. extransit (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila (Ugly Betty)[edit]

Sheila (Ugly Betty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources indicate the notability of this minor fictional character. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. PROD removed by editor who habitually de-PRODS articles at the rate of three or more per minute, but this character is already covered at List of Ugly Betty characters and the article's name is an extremely implausible search term, so neither merge nor redirect is required. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm a fan of the show, but I had no clue who this character was. According to IMDb, she appeared in only three episodes. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cow. I would also urge JClemens to exercise restraint when deprodding articles, because the current indiscriminate deprodding rampage is creating unnecessary work. Reyk YO! 22:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She has appeared in 3 episodes, which means she isn't a major character and apparently not significant enough to return post 2007. Looking at the article, she doesn't appear notable and the page is just plot info. Probably better suited to be covered on a season page or episode page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong confabulate 00:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by anonymous IP 32.175.46.37 [2] in seeking assistance with its improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources. And good luck changing the behavior of the inclusionists. I do what I can to counteract their official organization. SnottyWong confabulate 00:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, no notability. There's more of an independence issue than a reliability issue - you could theoretically cite the original programs to verify claims in the article, but the show obviously can't be used to substantiate notability. Whoever tagged this for rescue doesn't understand what the ARS is for, because per WP:PLOT, it's unencylopaedic. Claritas § 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verifiable evidence of notability. see WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is completely unsourced so merging and redirecting seems inappropriate. Spartaz Humbug! 05:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Franklin[edit]

Dr. Franklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources exist that establish the notability of this minor fictional character. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Prod removed by an editor who, in the course of removing PRODs at the rate of three or more per minute, suggests redirecting. Since any number of "Dr. Franklins" exist both in life and in fiction, redirect is an absurd suggestion as there is no logical redirect target. No one is likely to search for "Dr. Franklin" regardless of the target. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He was also one of the biggest characters in Babylon 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.13.12 (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, this article has nothing to do with Babylon 5. It's about a mad scientist who appeared on a couple of series in the 1970s. But your comment points out with perfect clarity the absurdity of the existence of this, as either an article or a redirect. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by anonymous IP 32.175.143.93 [3] in seeking assistance with its improvement. ---- 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already speedily deleted by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin-closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bummer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition. See: WP:NOTDIC j⚛e deckertalk 22:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maximillion (fictional dog)[edit]

Maximillion (fictional dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no reliable sources establish the notability of this fictional animal. The article fails WP:GNG and, as a mere report of the dog's appearances on the series, fails WP:PLOT. The cited sources consist of a user message board at Yahoo!, a page that appears to be soft-core superheroine porn and a non-existent Amazon page. Many sources note the existence of this character but none significantly cover it beyond the WP:PLOT-violating descriptions of episode contents. The character is already covered in The Bionic Woman and the article's name is a highly implausible search term, so there is no need for either a merge or a redirect. PROD declined by an editor who habitually declines PRODs for fictional subjects at the rate of three or more per minute. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first hit is nothing but a partial recounting of the plot of the episode in which the character is introduced. Well over 75% of the other Google News hits have nothing to do with the dog and are instead related to actor Maximillian Schell. The rest appear to be "What's on TV tonight" listings that simply note the appearance of the character and are not significantly about the character. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article I linked to is all about the dog. I can't read any of the rest without a paid subscription, so I have no idea what they say. Dream Focus 08:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article you linked to has four paragraphs about the episode in which the dog first appears, eight paragraphs about Phil Donahue, one paragraph about the 1977 Miss America pageant and one paragraph about funny things sports announcers say. If you can't read the other articles then you can't reasonably assert that they are about the fictional dog. Given that the word immediately following "Maximilian" in almost all of them is "Schell" the only logical inference is that they are referring to the actor of that name and not the fictional dog. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I have to agree that that article is nothing but a recounting of the plot in which the dog first appears. It doens't contain any professional opinion about the "character", if you will, just says what happens in the episode. That isn't true coverage, and certainly not significant coverage as is required by the GNG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually he didn't demonstrate it. What he showed was that a source summarized the plot of the episode the dog appeared in. That isn't coverage for the dog. Just to show, if you change "Bionic Woman" to "bionic dog" (see here) you only get 2 hits, as opposed to the 40 hits you got from Dream's original search which was picking up "Bionic Woman" more than anything. If you look at Dream's original search, all of the Maximilians are Maximilian Schell, you can see that next to ever hit. It's a false identification of "coverage".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there's an issue with your browser so you're reading the wrong link? Dreamfocus found an article with out of universe comments on the subject: "when ABC put out rumours a season ago that the Bionic Woman ... would be joined by a bionic dog, everyone thought it was a great joke" as well as assessemet of the character- "he looked for all the world like a splendidly formned German sheapeoard" and general commentary: "his name is Maximillian - he cost $1 million you see". All boxes ticked! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that. It was a single source (operative word being single) that mentioned any remote real world commentary in passing than anything. NBC mentioning the interest in a bionic dog is not coverage of Max the character, and hardly significant coverage. The comment about the splended form is not an assessment of the character, it's of the dog actor they used. It has nothing to do with the character itself. You're really trying to stretch the faintest of comments into something bigger. Please read the WP:GNG's definition of "significant coverage" and you'll notice that it talks about things that are mentioned more in passing than actual coverage of the topic. This article fails the GNG. It has no significanct coverage from third-party sources. It has a couple of passing mentions, and that's it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is entirely about the dog! Here's an example to show how to interpret what WP:GNG means by "passing" - in Dream's article ABC is only mentioned in briefly and only a sentence or two has any focus on the broadcaster, so we couldnt use the source to establish noteability for that company. True, about half the article could be considered a plot summary, but it focuses on the dogs role in the story, there isnt a single sentence that doesnt make at least an indirect reference to the dog. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Entire article? You're acting like this is some huge article about the dog. It's 4 small paragraphs that just recount what happens in the story. Whether it's about what happens to the dog (given that the episode is about the dog, one would assume that is what they would focus on storywise) or what happens to the Bionic Woman is irrelevant because it's still just recounting the plot of the episode. By definition: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." - That source does not meet that requirement, and rarely would any single source meet that requirement. There is no real commentary on the episode or on the dog, just a recap of what happened. Clearly, the consensus on this page is that that single "article" isn't enough to justify an entire page for this fictional dog. That's all I'm going to say further on the subject. You can try and stretch this one source to be something more, but the fact remains that it isn't anything but an episode recap.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - not to snub Dream's efforts in trying to source the article, but this doesn't meet WP:GNG, and there's very little out-of-universe coverage. Claritas § 18:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. extransit (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot (EP)[edit]

Slipknot (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an EP from a band whose own article will likely be deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slipknot (1980 band) for more information.) Also to avoid any confusion might I remind everyone that this is not an EP from this Slipknot. RG (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as PROD decliner. I didn't notice the duplicate names at the time I deprodded it. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article states that only 5000 copies were released, which is hardly notable. Can't find any good information. —Torchiest talk/contribs 15:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - note that small quantity of copies is not a criterion for deletion because everyone would get into a greater-than/less-than argument. Also, this album is from the pre-internet era so it's at a disadvantage in a search for online sources. But still, it appears that the band never achieve enough coverage to become notable enough for an encyclopedic article, so there is not much chance of anything being found for this album. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this band is not likely to survive it's AFD. I could find no infomation writing about the band much less this particular album. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the band article was deleted today (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slipknot (1980 band)) so per precedent at WP:ALBUMS this album article is no longer supportable and can be speedy deleted under CSD #A9. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter (Ugly Betty)[edit]

Walter (Ugly Betty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - no independent reliable sources that are significantly about this character. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Charatcer is already fully covered at List of Ugly Betty characters and the article's name is a highly implausible search term, so there is nothing to merge and no redirect is needed. PROD declined by an editor who habitually declines PRODs for fictional subjects at the rate of three or more per minute. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is some confliction on IMDB. They say he's in 20 eps, but his supposed last appearance is the 15th episode of season 1. It appears that there is only brief coverage of him as a character, and it's probably best covered on Ugly Betty (season 1), in a (needs to be developed) reception section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you arguing that the content be merged into Ugly Betty (season 1), redirected to that same article, or deleted entirely and brand new content created from scratch to go into that article? Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing to merge, because the "Reception" section is unsourced. I'm saying that sourcable reception info could be placed in the season 1 article, because that's probably going to be the best place for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree..there's nothing to merge and the name isn't a likely search either because there is no last name and the average reader won't know to add "(Ugly Betty)" after the name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to list. Minor character and no references. AniMate 23:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirection of an ambiguated name? How many people will be searching for "Walter (Ugly Betty)"? Given that he appearantly has no last name, he wouldn't even come up in the initially search block because of all the other "Walters" that pop up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are pretty cheap, I don't see how one could hurt. AniMate 20:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirections are good, when they are useful. A redirection of "Walter (Ugly Betty)" would be unuseful, because the average reader does not understand our naming conventions (i.e. "(Ugly Betty)") and would thus never find the redirect. Typing "Walter" doesn't bring "Walter (Ugly Betty)" into view of the search box. You'd never find the page in the search feature, thus it makes the redirect irrelevant, given that articles should pipe directly to his section and not to some redirect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again redirects are cheap and easy. This didn't even need to come here if the proposer had just redirected it. Besides I don't think "Walter Ugly Betty" is too big of a stretch for a search here. AniMate 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the redirect needs to be Walter Ugly Betty, and this page can still be deleted. The point is that "Walter (Ugly Betty)" is not a typical search term, and the average reader won't know to include parantheses like that around "Ugly Betty".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closing a little early. No consensus to delete and the nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet of someone who targets articles created by RAN. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton Lewis Brownson[edit]

Carleton Lewis Brownson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

author invited me to place this page on A.F.D. Contested Propsed deletion. Melanesian obsession (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Aron Wright House[edit]

Dr. Aron Wright House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This historical building was tagged as a suspected hoax, but it seems to exist per [8]. However, there's no indication that it has received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG Claritas § 21:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I missed this coverage because I searched for narrower terms. In my opinion, however, the content would probably be best in an article about Wright himself, not the house. Claritas § 12:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is now established that the house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and NRHP-listed properties are generally considered notable enough for their own articles. In addition, several other sources have now been found to further verify its notability. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like all other National Register properties, it has print sources available; one can email nr_reference@nps.gov for a free copy of the official form used to nominate it to the Register, and this form is a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as nom., the search terms I used originally were faulty, as it's not normally known as the "Dr. Aron Wright House". Claritas § 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Louise Porter[edit]

Dr Louise Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Appears to be an unremarkable person. All sources go to personal website or publishing firms. No substantial coverage. Also, incredibly spammy and possibly written by subject themselves. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Dr Louise Porter is in no way an unremarkable person. She is a writer so of course there will be links to publishing firms. I think this is a comprehensive page and is a true representation of Dr Porter and what she has accomplished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PortiaScott (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Deleted. Could be a joke article; instead, I suspect some kind of fictional creature (with absolutely no context on from where). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quaizer[edit]

Quaizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional lizard which falls under the jurisdiction of WP:MADEUP. The word has several meanings in different languages, but none of them relate to the content of this article. The creator of the article is presumably the same individual who made this drawing - [14]. Claritas § 21:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Barnes[edit]

Matthew Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable fails WP:GNG no significant coverage but just passing mention in the sources listed Mo ainm~Talk 20:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an ambitious high school student who accomplished academic success worth celebrating. Besides the fact that academics deserve more fame, Barnes has not only become very well known in his hometown of Ellwood City, Pennsylvania and it's surrounding areas, but to those involved in academic competition, he is known all throughout the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhartsown (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — Jhartsown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • KEEP THIS PAGE Excuse me, but that statement is ridiculous. Barnes is to social studies as the spelling bee champion is to linguisticks. Academics in this country are becoming inferior to their counterparts accross the world, and maybe the reason being that people don't seem to think that academics are worth noting. What Barnes did is an incredible feat in the acadmic circle, as those in academics well know. Barnes is a true leader. Jimmy Wales, the co founder of wikipedia, was interviewed quite a lot on the history channel's "America: The Story of US." And let me point something out, our nation wasn't formed on those who can throw footballs and hit homeruns, but rather people like Barnes who achieve great things with intelligence and character. He is a true leader, and all those who disagree are purely ignorant to what is truelly important in society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhartsown (talk • contribs) 13:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether that is true or not, it has no bearing on Wikipedia's notability criteria. Since the article is nominated for deletion because of lack of notability by Wikipedia's standards, to argue against that nomination you need to show notability. That he "accomplished academic success worth celebrating", that he performed "an incredible feat", and that he "is a true leader" do not indicate notability by Wikipedia's criteria unless there is significant coverage of him in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ASK OF YOU ALL Please, I understand the facts about the so called "criteria" of wikipedia, and I respect that. But the fact is that there are many wikipedia articles out there that contain much less notalbe references about athletes and entertainers etc. Don't get me wrong, these are well worth noting, but what is missing is the notability of young academics. In all honesty, these young men and women work just as hard and often harder than any athlete etc, and lets face it, in the long run, these are the men and women who become the leaders of the future. As many of you should be aware of, our education system is rapidly falling behind others accross the globe. Maybe if we start giving acadmics the credit they deserve and give them more attention than we do the batting cages, we can quickly climb back up as fast as we fell down. Once again, I ask of all the credible and experienced wikipedia editors, I please ask that you all understand my cause, and give Barnes, along with his fellow successfull acadmics, the credit they so greatly deserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhartsown (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I congratulate Matthew and I am glad his accomplishments received local recognition. However, that recognition is not sufficient for him to have a page in an international encyclopedia. There are plenty of other places where he can be celebrated (facebook, websites, etc.), but Wikipedia has standards, as it has to, and he does not meet them. Maybe as he continues with his schooling and career he will accomplish something truly notable, and will win the wider recognition needed for him to have a page here. But for now, no. --MelanieN (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Victor Louis Oudinot-Odinet[edit]

Nicholas Victor Louis Oudinot-Odinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed PROD which said "After diligent searching I can confirm that no such individual ever existed in France or elsewhere. There is an Oudinot family who was a marshal of Napoleon, but there is no Odinet branch of that family. This needs to be deleted", because I think it needs a discussion before deletion and a chance for others to contribute - I haven't had time to search myself yet, but I will when I can. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D. Shina[edit]

D. Shina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from being quoted in some news reports, I can’t find anything which directly discusses the subject. The main claim for notability is that the subject is an “expert in Electricity Finance”, but could not find any scholarly articles attributed to her, let alone the citations. Fails WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her studies and analysis after the budget were well noticed for the last four years. they are among the very few observations on the impact of the union budget. In Kerala there is nobody else who works on Electricity finance other than Dr M. Sarngadharan apart from Dr Shina. The citations also shows that even KSEB takes important decisions like withdrawal of load shedding base on her studies. 59.93.10.118 (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Johnson (artist)[edit]

Tom Johnson (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significance or notability, no objective sources. JNW (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veera (2010)[edit]

Veera (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unreferenced, and fails WP:CRYSTAL, as the article's subject film has not begun production. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011[edit]

Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains no definite information beyond the fact that Cyprus will participate in the 2011 Eurovision song contest. Everything else violates WP:CRYSTAL. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 404 (Podcast)[edit]

The 404 (Podcast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 404 was repeatedly deleted and eventually salted. I recently requested the use of it as a redirect to an Ontario highway with the page remaining locked, but it now seems an unlocked redirect has sprung up as an article. Delete as a podcast. Nothing notable to be discussed, resulting in an article that is a essentially a compendium of trivia. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources listed in the article mostly seem to be affiliated with the subject. Furthermore, all the Ghits I found are either affiliated with the subject, or links to download episodes. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete Considering that this group has been featured on Fox News, valleywag, ChannelApa, GoGameFace, and NPR, along with a daily show that has a few thousand listeners, i believe it to be notable. Frebel93 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I think this article is simply a helpful encyclopedia entry about a show which is rather popular and certainly notable. If you are new to the show, then this article is a good way of becoming familiar with what the show is about. I look at articles as if I were trying to do a report on the subject matter. I think that this article contains relevant information about a notable show, and as such does not deserve to be deleted. -Dychi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.11.219 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article sources 9 different independent reliable outlets that discuss the show, thus it covers the significant coverage,reliable, sources, and independent of the subject guidelines stipulated in [15] Wikipedia:Notability. The article also displays "significant independent coverage," as the subject of the article is covered in numerous sources as discussed previously. This article does not serve as self promotion, as it is created independently of the show's hosts and it provides a complete knowledge of all facets of the show. The notability of this article is not temporary because the independent sources have all been posted in differing time periods between 2008-2010. What else is needed? 17:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete I understand that previous attempts at creating this page were poorly sourced, but this time, it has a majority of outside, independent, reliable sources, and I don't think it should be deleted just because it wasn't properly created before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frebel93 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Neither the NPR, nor the Fox News article, mention the podcast, and the others are either blogs, forum posts, or related to the podcast itself. Also, the enormous external links section suggests self-promotion. Fails WP:WEB in several ways. Has no independent reliable sources either, so it also fails WP:RS. --Fbifriday (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2010t (UTC)
  • Dont Delete This podcast is notable because of the variety/notability of the guests it has had, and its large audience. Its hosts have been featured in a variety of different outlets, and the show is known throughout the tech community.The article is not a stub, but a fully fleshed out page, with strong community support. This article shouldn't be deleted because it provides such a rich source of information and it reflects well on Wikipedia as an institution. It is a very well laid out and visually appealing page, that informs the reader on many different levels. This article shows what Wikipedia can be at its best

Frebel93 (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Frebel93, you do not need to continue updating the page with your opposition to deleting the page, once is plenty, and the fact that you have not signed some of them, it appears that you are attempting to "stuff the ballot box", however, remember, this is not a vote, it is a discussion for consensus, based on guidelines and policy. --Fbifriday (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should also be aware that notability is not inherited. Just because a podcast has interviewed notable people does not make it notable. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Post Im not trying to flood this page, but simply trying to represent the don't delete opinion. The reason some of them are unsigned was simple oversight on my part, this will be my last post. I've said all I can, I simply don't want this page to be deleted out of spite, I want the administrators to consider everything when making thier decision. I thank you all for your time and I encourage anyone to contact me with your thoughts Frebel93 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The gold standard that I use for a podcast is TWIT. The show hosts and majority of guests are well and can be understood. This on the other hand reads like a minor sub-sub program (CBS -> CNet -> CNetPodcasts -> The 404). In addition it seems like most of the content is the Inside Jokes and "Who we've had" sections. I can only claim knowing 4 or 5 of the people on the Notable Guests list. In all, I think the reference on the CNet Networks Podcasts says everything that needs to be said. Hasteur (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete: With all the above said, I think what it comes down to is that wikipedia is a wiki and a resource to the average user such as myself. I am not an avid wikipedia editor and don't have an account, but am an avid reader of wikipedia. This podcast has thousands of listeners like me that would like to be reminded of its hosts or the various guests that have been on the show and to easily click through and find out more about them. I think this page will be beneficial to 404 podcast viewers and listeners. ~ Siavash
Everybody has specific interests, but we can't be there for all of them. Trivia such as the guest stars that have appeared are better left to the website for that podcast. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Condron[edit]

Marcus Condron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some passing references to student work, and credits but nothing of substance, fails WP:ENTERTAINER –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astros Gunnarsdottir[edit]

Astros Gunnarsdottir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no references, or news sources, just wikis and facebook and other directories. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A one line credit and a sentence saying she got a Masters degree. This doesn't come close to satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meets neither the GNG or the relevant SNGs, as per nom. I repeated my own searches and came up with essentially the same sources as Bearian. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V and all notability criteria. Given the assertions made in the article she certainly sounds notable, however I could find no sources in any language to verify the claims. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga's 3rd Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lady Gaga's 3rd Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

name unknown, nothing substantive in the one reliable source, most content speculation from fan pages, deletion per WP:CRYSTAL Hekerui (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep . There's a clear concensus for keeping this topic. Discussion on what to call it should continue on the article's talk page. Marasmusine (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girl gamer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Girl gamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No explanation of significance. If we leave this like it is, we might as well have Girl Carpenter, Girl Scientist, Guy Make-up Artist, etc. The Guy Gamer article was deleted, so there is a clear gender-inequality issue. There is nothing unique about "girl gamers" other than the fact that they are a smaller percentage than gamers that are guys. Like I said, if this stands, we might as well start an article for every gender that is a minority in some activity or hobby.

In addition, the term "Gamer Girl" is not used in any credible source. Of the two sources in this article, one only uses "Girl gamers" to reference gamers that are girl, not as a specific term. The other link is broken.

The only people to use the term "Girl Gamer" are attention-seeking women only using gaming as a medium for themselves to attract other's attention. The first line of the article defines a gamer girl as a girl who games. However, this is incorrent, as is the rest of the article, because there are plenty of girls that game that are not 'girl gamers'. They are just gamers. Gamer girls are not all girls that play games, but rather that attention-seeking people that I mentioned above. Also, if a community using a term makes that term valid and worthy of an article, we should make an article for Pubfag, etc.

However, since this is not mentioned in any major publication, since it would just be an attack column. No one would write an article about this, because it is just something that exists in the community of gamers that exists. There are gamers - male and females. Then, there are so-called "gamer girls", which are in fact not gamers, but attention-lovers.

Additionally Gamer girl itself is a tautology as mentioned by another editor on the discussion page because "gamer" does not exclude girls. If not deleted, this could be merged into a serperate article like "Gender in gaming", or a subheading in the Gamer article called Gender In Gaming. --Knovevmber (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Girl gamer" is at the very least a valid search term and when Nintendo releases a magazine titled "Girl Gamer" and publications such as Edge discuss the "girl gamer market" it is clear that it is indeed a recognisable neologism and not in every instance an incidental combination of noun and adjective. The nominator's rationale rests on "no sources" which is evidently not true and the rest can be disregarded as opinionated original research. Again, the term receives non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources, passes WP:V and WP:N and warrants coverage if not an entire article on Wikipedia. bridies (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Nominator used wrong capitalization. DMacks (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Topic is clearly notable, as evidenced by several conferences with academic research and organizations with groups specifically dedicated to it (linked in article). But then we'll have to create a zillion other X in Y articles--yes, as soon as there are sources demonstrating that it's a notable topic. There really are given sources that specifically focus on the female aspect here, not just two columns of parallel data, so cloning it and swapping every gendered word, as appears to have been the WP:POINTy genesis of Guy Gamer, isn't an automatic keeper if the girl article survives. The term itself does not even need to be used (although others say it is used), per WP:NOTNEO policy, as long as it clearly describes the topic. However, some of the issues really are gender-comparison-related (or at least also highlight the current male-dominance of the field). There is an active discussion on article talk-page involving several ideas for renaming to something involving the term "gender" instead of highlighting one particular one--that doesn't require an AFD to resolve. DMacks (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as arguments above that other have written on. Do not rename to gender in gaming, as people have no problem finding the topic under girl gamer. There would be no opposition to girl carpenter if other people had written about this topic, so this argument that other stuff does not exist is irrelevant, each topic has its own merits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although AFD is not really the place to discuss page moves, for the record I also oppose moving to "Gender and gaming". No convincing argument has thus far been provided in support of such a move and a WP:GOOGLE of the term counts for nothing. bridies (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename Clearly Notable subject with a ton of potential, but I am certainly in favor of renaming this article to a more official and appropriate name. Vodello (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Women and video games, or Video gaming and gender, or something similar. I'm not sure exactly what the best title would be, but 'girl gamer' seems somewhat pejorative and inaccurate; I am convinced the basic topic is notable, however. Robofish (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


information Administrator note The AFD was never listed in the first place. It has now been listed on today's (July 10) list of AFDs. –MuZemike 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Pointy nomination. The editor has said on the talk page that the REAL reason he wants the article deleted is that there is no "Guy Gamer" article anymore. His rationale is not based in policy, but in the fact that he is offended by perceived sexism against males. Others have demonstrated that the topic has been studied and mentioned in news and scholarly works, and is thus notable. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Treading on the edge of NPA and AGF here. Let's focus on the article and not the nominator putting it up Hasteur (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - All I am doing is repeating what he himself said on the talk page: "I either want a complete deletion of this article, or the resurrection of the Gamer Guy article". Pointing out a pointy nomination does not violate any policies. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean Wikipedia, or its editors, are inherently sexist just because the majority of them are male. –MuZemike 00:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and oppose move - Plenty of coverage via reliable sources, most of which refer to this term directly. The only move I would consider is a women in gaming move that would not only cover this, but possibly expand on it with examples. --Teancum (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without move - As Bridies notes, the term is clearly in popular use and is easily sourced with RSes. Per Jclemens and Teancum I would not be opposed to a merge with a hypothetical "gender in gaming" article but only on the condition that "girl gamer" formed a distinct section within this new article and that redirects pointed at this subsection. The term is certainly somewhat sexist but that is not a valid reason to exclude it from a non-censored Wikipedia. The goal here is to report information not to cure society's phraseological shortcomings. -Thibbs (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:SNOW anyone? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep and discuss rename if necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Gender and video games, leaving "Girl gamer" as a redirect (I assume that's technically possible). Buddy431 (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacopo Sala[edit]

Jacopo Sala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted via WP:PROD, now recreated. Article is about a 18-year old player with no first team appearances to date, thus failing WP:NSPORT and WP:ATH, and no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Angelo (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No knowledge or involvement in the previous version. Player is one of the fifty Chelsea squad players, which in my opinion makes him notable. There is some coverage, not much, player is in the Italy national youth team and is rising in notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is an international player at U19s level. Has appeared for the chelsea reserves in the 2009/2010 season. Will be playing more next season johnb (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.15.74 (talk) [reply]
  • Delete - By general consensus, youth international caps do not confer notability, and he has yet to appear for Chelsea's first team. He therefore fails WP:ATHLETE, and there is insufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. The player may well be rising in notability, in which case the article can be undeleted if/when he has risen. AJCham 15:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No appearances for Chelsea, no appearances for the main Italian squad and nothing to show that he passes Wp:GNG. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 00:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Kuhn[edit]

Oskar Kuhn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article consists of 6 words describing the subject along with a list of books. This seems insufficient to establish that this individual meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The page also includes a link to his academic biography at University of Halle-Wittenberg (German language). Amazon.de also shows his books still in print. And the informative "What links here" on the English Wikipedia shows that he is being used as an authority in the articles on various dinosaurs. So an article for expansion, not deletion. AllyD (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While this Palaeontologist does have notability in their field (and wikilinks pointing at him), I'm not seeing a reason for a BLP article. It should be noted that the content of the article (except for adding 1 additional book and minor patrol changes) has been the same since April 1st 2005 and registered to various projects without getting any substantive additions. Hasteur (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone is a notable paleontologist, that is a reason to include an article about that person. As for being a BLP, that is highly unlikely. The German ref given in the article[16] states that he was born in 1908. That would make him 102 by now. Nsk92 (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, according to this[17], it appears that he died in 1990. Nsk92 (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 17,500 refs on google scholar; first editor of notable Handbook of Paleoichthyology -- clear notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't challenge the number of refs, but I'm having trouble seeing it. Can you provide a link to the results that show the 17,500 refs on google scholar? The scholar link above shows 172. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear notability based on number of references, etc. --Boson (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AllyD. Tomas e (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable. Dewritech (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although with a little hesitation. For somebody in academia who worked primarily before the internet age, I'd usually want to see more explicit evidence of specific biographical coverage, even for WP:PROF cases. However, here the googlebooks results[18] are quite significant, even allowing for a portion of false positives. He was a co-editor of a multi-volume encyclopedia[19]. Also, his collected papers were published in 1959[20], presumably upon retirement; this usually indicates a significant degree of academic notability. The entry could certainly use the attention of an expert, but I think we can be reasonably sure that the subject was indeed a notable academic. So passes WP:PROF, in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, author of a number of important German books on Paleontology. Initiated and wrote some of the Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology, an important multi-volume textbook on fossil reptiles and amphibians). Check Google Books and Google Scholar for a range of references, which show academic notability. I concede the wiki page itself is stubby, but the solution there is to add more material, not deletion of the whole entry M Alan Kazlev (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I explored the sources I could access online and filled out the article with a short bio. In addition to being called influential and having been demonstrably so in his publications, particularly the Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology, he turns out to be frequently referred to as influential in the struggle between systematic and idealistic morphology in the German universities; that is to say, his views on evolution are referred to as part of the back story on Intelligent Design, especially since he was so eminent.Yngvadottir (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, if not very. —innotata 18:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I do understand the WP:INHERITED argument, but the subsequent sources added indicates that that no longer applies here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana Grigorieva[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Oksana Grigorieva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The entire article and all the references in it revolve around the marriage to Mel Gibson which does not give the subject of the BLP notability, as notability is not inherited. Wikipedia's guideline is pretty clear on this: "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." The article should be deleted, or at the very least redirected to the Mel Gibson article. Oksana Grigorieva has no notability according to Wikipedia's definition. Amsaim (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable musician in her own right, will improve the page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Sources that will be used which show significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, include articles in Reuters, and The Times, among many other publications. These sources go into a bit of depth of info about the subject, focusing on her education, music background, career, etc. Will provide more details with full cites. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Her notability as a musician seems marginal - I did find this. I would like to see evidence of notability outside her relationship with Mel Gibson before I would be happy to keep this - we shouldn't have articles on people simply because the press report on their private life.--Michig (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try doing searches in various database archives for "Oksana Grigorieva" and "Beautiful Heartache". Prior to that, she also wrote and sang on an album of Josh Groban. Before that, she attended the Royal Academy of Music. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found this (television) coverage. Also these: [21], [22], [23] and plenty more on Google News. Most if not all may not exist had she not been involved with Gibson, but there's enough about her as a musician whatever the reason for the interest in her. It would be nice if we could lose the tabloid crap from the article, though.--Michig (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the links provided by Michig. I too, however, would like to see the article written in a more encyclopedic tone re information about her rather than focusing on her breakup with Mel. Pianotech (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet notability standards. Wolfview (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some celebrity boy/girlfriends become independently notable over time; their original source of notoriety isn't relevant if they now meet the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article clearly has content sourcing others claims to notability beyond being Gibson's girlfriend. True, her biggest claim may be being his girlfriend, but if she's received newsworthy praise for other things, then it fits.Luminum (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her name's been in news headlines pretty much every week for, like, over a year now...Adrigon (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dungle[edit]

Dungle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Software bundle - still "under development" with only "proposed features". Returns no ghits. WP:CRYSTAL applies as it's all "unconfirmed", "unsure" NtheP (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frixion[edit]

Frixion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am concerned that this does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). There does not appear to be any criticla or commercial success as yet, and I am not satisfied that being a supporting/warm-up act for N-Dubz is an automatic claim to notability. There is no evidence of how many times this has happened, may have just been one local gig. G-hits rates only the myspace page as far as I can see. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried yesterday to find sources and could find nothing outside of myspace and Facebook. Pianotech (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Flop Pineapple Poker[edit]

No Flop Pineapple Poker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Game with no assertion of notability. Looks like an ad for the one casino website that is said to play it." - brought here for Blanchardb after deprodding by IP. Hekerui (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthroconservatism[edit]

Anthroconservatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism with no evidence of notability - was deprodded, brought here for RHaworth Hekerui (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per G4. Repeatedly recreating this page is not a valid way to contest previous deletions. Use deletion review instead. SoWhy 08:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonnie (Singer)[edit]

Nonnie (Singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Article was speedied and deleted only a few months ago. All the sources appear to be unreliable and can find no reliable coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personally tried finding references and could find nothing outside of World Book & News, which is a free press release site. Pianotech (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am starting to think that this is a bias judgment. As I have presented before the article should meet general standards as other articles, such as --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmine_Villegas Concerning the source, while WorldBookAndNews does allow you to submit to the site, the submissions are reviewed by there editors and must be found truth and reliable before being posted on the site read up on there guidelines. Also I think it would only be fair for editors who have not been previously associated with this topic to post here to 100% bias free. (Whitetiger01 (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • reply The World Book & News front page says "Submit free press release. See your news here immediately." The singer could very well be notable, and I hope that is the case. I'm just saying that notability has not been demonstrated yet, imo. Pianotech (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply I understand that, but has anyone tired to submit anything there? It will tell you that artcle must be reviewed first and proven true before being posted on the site. Even TV news stations allow you to submit press releases, but that doesn't mean they should be looked at as unreliable. With all due respect for everyone commenting in here, I thought the artlce was fine with that tags that were previously placed on it, until more sources become available. It has only been what? A day since it's creation. (Whitetiger01 (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • For an answer to "but has anyone tired to submit anything there", see my comment below, which gives an indication just how much an article there must be "reviewed first and proven true". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will be leaving this up to the other editors that comment. I have tried so hard to get this article accepted, that I'm just done fussing with anyone. All that I ask is that the editors that were involved with the previous page stay out of this because I strongly feel there is bias with them. That is all. (Whitetiger01 (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete and salt title variants. Wikipedia cannot exclude editors from deletion debates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Qwertyus (talk • contribs) 15:35, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
Keep Subject proves to be notable IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.15.224 (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — 166.137.15.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Keep Subject proves to be notable IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.93.228 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — 67.87.93.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete and salt. Various forms of this article have been deleted at least eleven times (4 times under the title Nonnie berard, 3 times under the title Nonnie Berard, 3 times under the title Nonnie, and once under the title Nonnie Berard (Entertainer)). It has been salted under at least two titles (Nonnie berard and Nonnie Berard). There has been at least one previous AfD resulting in "delete" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonnie berard). The creator of the present version (Whitetiger01) was blocked for 48 hours for "Persistently creating non-notable articles, despite warnings". During the block this editor contacted me by email indicating a wish to re-create the article. Since then I have put a significant amount of time into checking the sources Whitetiger01 has given, searching for other sources, and carefully explaining to Whitetiger01 what would be acceptable for an article, and what is not acceptable about the present one. Whitetiger01 has removed my comments from their talk page, but they are visible here. In the email to me, Whitetiger01 wrote "Someone told me that it could be fixed with just one reliable source" and duly gave just one source. That source was uploaded to the site "World Book and News" at 23:29 on 7 July 2010, and emailed to me a few hours later. I explained that one very brief source was not enough, and Whitetiger01 then found two slightly longer sources from the same web site. Those two sources were uploaded to the site on 8 July 2010, and cited in the Wikipedia article on 9 July. I then explained that we had three sources all from the same site, and that site was not reliable. Whitetiger01 then came up with another source, from a different non-reliable site. We have now got five references. Three of these are to "World Book and News", to which anyone can submit material. Despite what Whitetiger01 says, this site does very little in the way of checking information submitted. To test the reliability of the site I have submited an "article" to that site. My submission was accepted, despite lacking context, sources, or anything at all that would enable it to be verified. You may read it here. Of the other two "references" in the article, one is a post on a wiki, and the other one is to the singer's fan site. The Wiki post was uploaded on 9 July by 174.69.219.214 (this IP has also edited the Wikipedia article), and it was cited in the WP article on 10 July. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Salt, etc. - I have seen articles on Ms. Berard go through this process already but I had no idea there have been so many attempts. Kudos to JamesBWatson for the great historical analysis above. To Ms. Berard's supporters, nobody here has anything against the lady but she has not yet achieved enough in her career to be the subject of a verifiable research-oriented encyclopedia article. She has earned the right to be promoted by organizations that might be able to make her more notable in the future, and when that happens maybe it'll be time for a Wikipedia article. So for now, just give it a rest and devote your energies toward promoting the lady's future career through channels that are meant for promotion. Wikipedia isn't one of them so stop trying. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Serious lack of reliable sources to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— SharkEmpress13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • a "strong" keep for "barely" meeting the standards? Perhaps you can explain how the person meets notability standards. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alike you, I have seen previous profiles of Ms. Berard and all I've seen is improvement as some of the other editors have even emitted. I know this is a part of Wikipedia notable policy, but in my opinion simply being signed to a major recording label (2 in Ms. Berard's case), when compared to have many people singers in the world(Millions upon millions) fail to reach that point, is at least enough to warrant a Wikipedia account, well at least imo. (SharkEmpress13 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
— SteelFighter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment - On what basis does this seem to warrant notability? -- Whpq (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Every one of the "keep" comments has been made either by the creator of the article or by a user (either registered or IP) with no edits at all before the day on which they commented here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination by nominator. (non-admin closure) Maashatra11 (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samy D.[edit]

Samy D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD tag was removed by a major editor. Seems like a promotional article to me. The sources give no substantial coverage; [27] and [28] are primary and [29] and [30] merely mention him in passing. From a search in Google I can't see much about him apart from directly related sources. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


samy d. is one of israel's leading ceramics artists. in recant years he establishes his world wide reputation as a contemporary ceramics artist and designer. this entry was created not for marketing reasons. please guide me, what changes i should make in order to maintain it. many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohai35 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have seen Samy D.'s work at the major craft art fairs in the U.S. Moreover, this is not a promotional article since I have no connection with this artist, other than the fact that I like his work. I often start an article when I see a work of art Big Bambú or an artist who I like and notice that there is no wikipedia article. I do the same thing for writers/academics whose work I am curious about, and buildings that I like. But I am no more "promoting" Samy D. than I am "promoting" Doug and Mike Starn, Ethel Franklin Betts, or John Prentiss Benson, other artists about whom I have written articles. Or, if you like, I am promoting them no less. If I like an artist's work, and if there are reliable secondary sources, I think that I perform a public service when I start an article, so that other people who like the work can find out something about the artist.AMuseo (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AMuseo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Samy D is listed along with several others who were selected AIDA artists, namely "Ceramics — Samy D, Vered Tandler Dayan, Jacaranda Kori, Yael Novak, Ethel Pisareff, Leah Sheves, Fiber — Gali Cnaani, Gal Feldman, Idit Kaplan Friedberg, Yehudit Katz, Gil Leitersdorf, Yael Rosen, Jewelry — Sarit Assaf, Noa Goren Amir, Nirit Dekel, Anat Gelbard, Avital Korsh, Omer Lior, Sara Shahak, Orly Wexler, Metal — Tali Abraham, Nati Amoils, Mixed Media — Lauri Recanati". In your opinion, should we create articles for all those people per WP:ARTIST?
Not necessarily, but if articles were created selection for the exhibition would contribute towards WP:ARTIST.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was curious about the Rotschild award, so I made a Google search, and see what comes up first in the results. Changing the search terms won't help : [32] (The answer is Samy D , of course). Secondly, I don't see why he passes wp:ARTIST per receiving (quite minor) awards. criteria 1, 2 and 3 seem unrelated to prizes. Thus we're left with 4, which says : The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I don't think it meets (a) as nothing like that is mentioned in the article. For (b), (c) and (d), it's unclear how his works/exhibitions can be deemed notable. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section of WP:ARTIST is "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." A significant exhibition is often taken to mean an exhibition in a museum. Winning a national award would be "significant critical attention". If AIDA has a selective membership that would meet "regarded as an important figure... by their peers." But, as ever, commonsense prevails over the criteria. If the subject has won a national award, and has featured in a museum exhibition, they're probably notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the Alix De Rothschild award is a "national award"? I also don't think it's clear that his work has been "a substantial part of a significant exhibition." Exhibitions are covered in the article only as part of a list lacking details that may assert significance. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an annual, nationwide competition, with an exhibition and finalists bragging about being chosen finalists. Winning, of course, is a bigger deal.AMuseo (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I googled "Alix de Rothschild" and easily found numerous galleries and artists citing the prize, articles about Alix de Rothschild and her lifelong support for the arts, and news articles describing this prize in English. It is given in Israel so most of the coverage is naturally in Hebrew. As is a great deal of coverage about this artist. I put a description of the prize with footnotes to two English-language articles about it on the page. And, yes, there are a great many artist who deserve pages and do not yet have them, probably including many of the winners of this prize.AMuseo (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note most of the coverage of this artist is in Hebrew, as is true with most artists from non english-speaking countries.AMuseo (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw, given the improbabillity that this will ever be deleted. Maashatra11 (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shibao[edit]

Shibao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for reliable third-party sources only comes up with websites distributing illegal scanlations. Beyond the plot descriptions, the article fails WP:V, WP:NOTE, and WP:BK. The magazine or publisher of the series does not contribute anything towards the notability of the work. Nor does the author of the work appear to have any notability either. While the series does seem popular in scanlations, popularity is not the same as notability. Appears that it has not been licensed outside of Japan. —Farix (t | c) 12:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability found. No licensor in English, German, French, Spanish & Italian. Search results returned nothing relevant in term of notability. Scanlation never went further than volume 1 out of 6. --KrebMarkt (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3.3.7 Byooshi!![edit]

3.3.7 Byooshi!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for reliable third-party sources only comes up with websites distributing illegal scanlations. Beyond the plot descriptions, the article fails WP:V, WP:NOTE, and WP:BK. The magazine or publisher of the series does not contribute anything towards the notability of the work. Nor does the author of the work appear to have any notability either. While the series does seem popular in scanlations, popularity is not the same as notability. Appears that it has not been licensed outside of Japan. —Farix (t | c) 12:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability found => Fail GNG & WP:BK. No licensor in English, French, German, Italian & Spanish. Search results are scanlations, blogs, forums & direct download. I should note that this series had a 5 bunkoban re-release by Kodansha denoting at least some popularity in Japan however that won't do in term of notability --KrebMarkt (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Brothers & Sisters (2006 TV series)#Extended family and friends. Since we already have a proto list I'm going with m,erge there but the erge target is an editorial decision so feel free to creat e the listr Tarc suggested when ready. Spartaz Humbug! 05:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Whedon[edit]

Joe Whedon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article that fails to demonstrate notability of the character. No real world treatment of a fictional character. AussieLegend (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Mondryk[edit]

Harry Mondryk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Serial contestant on Britain's Got Talent but no individual notability. Trivial coverage in a national newspaper website, again related only to BGT. Created by an editor repeatedly blocked for creating such articles; creating this was their first action on emerging from their latest block. I42 (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the band he's in isn't even notable. AnemoneProjectors 12:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability independent of BGT & even there he didn't get though to the live shows. Nancy talk 12:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not worldwidely recognised. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Minimac (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The issue isn't whether he has any talent nor whether people feel his media attention is deserved. The only question is whether he receives significant coverage from reliable third party sources. WP:Notability Hello: [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] Under the guidelines subjects who receive significant press coverage are notable even when they receive the coverage as a result of failure, losing elections or declaring bankruptcy. Notability attaches solely as a result of the coverage. Eudemis (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, all of those references concern Britain's Got Talent; it is that which is notable, not this contestant.The guideline is to cover the event, not the individual. I42 (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's not being mentioned in articles about an event; the articles are about Harry. For notability, "sources address the subject directly." WP:Notability You can't read these articles and say they are about Britain's Got Talent. Eudemis (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useless popular culture fluff article, but there are plenty of those on Wikipedia. Subject seems over the accepted notability bar and the article is well enough written. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Coverage does not appear to be in-depth.--PinkBull 03:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If they are notable only for participation in one event than BLP1E applies, which as a policy trumps N. Spartaz Humbug! 05:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jerzak[edit]

Stephen Jerzak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Being signed to a record label is not a real claim to notability, nor is having a popular MySpace account. Perhaps in 6 months or a year an article would be appropriate. Nymf hideliho! 09:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necati Arabaci[edit]

Necati Arabaci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a negatively and poorly sourced biography of a living person, created by an editor who has written other anti-Turkish, racist articles. I can't find verification of the information in this article in reliable sources - this article seems to be a synthesis of information found in German local newspapers/newsmagazines, none of which I would consider reliable enough to be the sole sources of a potentially controversial article, and several which may contain right-wing bias. If the only notable thing about him is a trial, per WP:ONEEVENT we shouldn't have an article about him anyway, but place any verifiable information in Prostitution in Germany if it is relevant. Claritas § 09:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your regional English Wikipedia you could read that the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung is a major German regional daily newspaper published since 1945. A major German regional daily newspaper is a reliable source. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Apparently he is the crime lord. So he has a major role as boss of a crime gang which leads many major crime and sentenced to 9 years in Germany. So there is no single WP:ONEEVENT, he is major actor and boss, in major events: he organised multiple crime activities while breaking many laws, hurting many people and making a serious profit.
  • Prostitution in Germany has references already. I made some improvements on reference naming and content from MAIN page
  • WP:ORPHAN is unnecessary, for WP:OR having 1 uncited claim is not worth tagging whole article [yet if german articles doesn't support text it is another issue]
  • Also please show some more effort in improving the article and notifying related wiki projects when you AFD articles. I put notification in [41] and [42]. AFD nominators should seriously put some more effort over improving articles. Kasaalan (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BEFORE, I'm not obliged to do any of that. You don't really seem to understand the fundamental points of my nominaton. Claritas § 13:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are chapters 3, 4, 9 and 10 in WP:AFD. Also notifying related projects results much more healthy debates with wider participation. We also need a translator so we can decide how strong/weak the references are. [or you if you know German] I have done all I could do for improving article. There aren't internet sources more than the creator provided. If the standalone article is not needed merge it with WP:MAIN article Prostitution in Germany. I re-added OR tag, since we cannot verify German articles, yet still not sure if there is any OR or not. By the way I completely omitted the racist article creator part before I comment, so it is another issue with the article, my mistake. Does the article references also racist or they are NPOV. Changed my vote and comments, I still support merging, with a weaker keep. Kasaalan (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kasaalan, you were warned about this level of antagonism in AfD discussions. This discussion led to this warning. Don't go down this road again, please; discuss rationally, don't fly off the handle. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily tell the antagonism wasn't around until you came.
You have been warned by other users many times about your disruptive behaviour yourself, since you insistently swear/insult to other users numerous times like a junior school kid User talk:Tarc#Your aggressive behaviour at ANI or User talk:Tarc#your post etc.. Be thankful that I never make any complaints about other users [e.g. your multiple insults and swears}.
Admin does not bother reading my comments, he is not kind to other users himself [read his talk page] so his comments are way off from reality. Yet I still followed the instructions on "no comment on notifications" as a policy. The notification is clearly NPOV. But if there is any issue with the context tell here so I change. Kasaalan (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, the difference is that you were directly warned by an admin, one who actually cited your atrocious behavior in the AfD closing statement, which I have never seen before. The "warnings" you refer to on my talk page come from regular editors, like you, who have had a beef with me. Apples and oranges. Give it a rest and move on already. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admins tend to make mistakes, a lot. I don't change my opinions if the user is admin or not. I respect who contributes to wikipedia, that is all. you try to start a quarrel but I will give your answers in actual talk page not here. I am not even sure if the admin have actually read your swears or know about your behavioural issues at all. Unless you bring the same issue over and over again noone has to reply your nonsense. Kasaalan (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to discuss AfD guidelines. Drop this now, please. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Certainly does not pass WP:PERP, and the general notability is a bit shaky. I'd like to see some sort of notability in Western English-speaking media, rather than just local coverage of trials and such in German outlets. Maybe this is simply a topic more suited for de.wiki rather than en. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — While I am still on the fence with respect to notability, there is no requirement that the sources must be in English-language media (I assume that's what you mean, as German media are certainly "western"), only that they are reliable, etc. Favonian (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know it isn't, that was more of a personal preference/observation. And I meant to say English-speaking, not Western, my mistake. With the sourcing now though, it just seems like this is a small-interest person whose notability doesn't rally extend beyond where the crimes were committed. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I should recommend delete, but I cannot read German to determine whether or not this passes WP:V and WP:N. There are no English sources to prove notability, and I cannot find this subject in the German or Turkish Wikipedias. Location (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first article simply reports on his sentencing, saying that "the most powerful man in Cologne", a "crime lord" was sentenced to 9 years in prison for prostitution-related offences. I have concerns however about the reliability of the sources - even with de-1 they seem a tad sensationalist. Claritas § 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany to get a few more opinions on this. Location (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I PRODed this yesterday, but my tag was removed. My rationale was "Poorly sourced (references are only in German); doubtful notability (no article on German Wikipedia); BLP and libel concerns. Article creator has since been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing." This looks like a worthless piece of trouble-making from a banned editor with a history of apparently racist editing and article cteation. RolandR (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It says Cologne is Germany's 4th largest city (after Berlin, Hamburg and Munich), and is the largest city both in the German Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia and within the Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area one of the major European metropolitan areas with more than 10.000.000 inhabitants ."
    • If he is the boss of mafia/organized crime in a 1.000.000 populated German city who has a certain conviction [9 years] for organised crime like Pandering (prostitution) and Human trafficking he is notable one way or another. I don't know the user. Personally I made many contributions on anti-prostitution, anti-human rights violation and anti-mafia related articles so I don't care the nation of the mafia at all.
    • However we need a german translator for verifying the references if the article creator is racist/Neo Nazi as you say, he could have mistranslate the sources deliberately. Kasaalan (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google does a good job, and Chrome does also, I'll take a look. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • A quick look makes me inclined to think that he is notable, but others should try a translator as well. I think the article's creator is doing this to make a point, but nevertheless... Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references demonstrate (yes, I can read German) that his notability extends beyond a single crime, and IMO he passes the requirements for notability. Some cleanup is required though. Favonian (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm shocked by what I read about German regional press ("Poorly sourced: references are only in German") in this page of the regional self-centered English Wikipedia. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would certainly consider Focus and WDR reputable sources.imars (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean to imply that these are not reliable sources. But, as a non-German speaker, I have no way of knowing if they actually confirm the assertions made in the article. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources, "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors"; in the absence of such a verifiable reference, I am reluctant to accept the assessment of the editor who added these, and has since been indefinitely blocked for "disruptive editing". RolandR (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inasmuch as Hekerui has opined below (and I completely trust his analysis in German-sourced articles), I have no such concerns.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes wiki notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the German articles (I read them) demonstrate notability but the article is written in a questionable tone and needs cleanup. Hekerui (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, is it acceptable to keep poorly sourced controversial content on living people even if they meet WP:GNG or the like ? Claritas § 18:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's poorly written together from the sources and some facts are incorrectly taken from the sources, like the birth years, but it's not poorly sourced. I admit I'm not scambling to volunteer to rewrite the thing. Hekerui (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really ? It makes the following claims : "He owns numerous brothels in Germany and Spain, and is involved in serious human trafficking. His men entice young girls from the East to Germany, and force them into prostitution." with no cite. I can't see those in the sources. Claritas § 18:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I quoted the policy above, that the original and a translation should be provided. As I suspected, some at least of the assertions made in the article are not verified by the sources cited; they should be removed at once. RolandR (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more sources I could find. We should call a translator from Wikipedia:Translators_available#German-to-English for verifying German sources. I have my own concerns about the translations too. Kasaalan (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that means someone (or a dialect or beer) from Cologne.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Basically a (silly) variation of Cologne-Turks. Hekerui (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So not racist but a slang. Kasaalan (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've checked this version of the article whether the German sources support the claims of the article.
The article claims: "Turkish businessman and criminal, who has been referred to as the "Boss of Bosses", who formerly lived in Cologne, Germany. In 2002 he was arrested for pimping, human trafficking, assault, extortion, weapons violations, and racketeering. In 2004 he was sentenced to nine years in prison on his charges.""
The Source Kölner Stadtanzeiger is a local cologne newspaper, not a politically biased newspaper. It says:
"einst mächtigsten Mann der Kölner Türsteher- und Rotlichtszene Necati A." translates as "formerly mightiest man of the cologne bouncer and red light disctrict scene Necati A.". "Wegen Rädelsführerschaft einer kriminellen Vereinigung, schweren Menschenhandels, Körperverletzung, räuberischer Erpressung und Zuhälterei wurde der Rotlichtpate zu neun Jahren, sein Komplize zu acht Jahren und neun Monaten Haft verurteilt." translates as "sentenced [...] for gang leader ship of a criminal association, serioully human trafficking, personal injury, extortionate robbery and procuration".
The article says "in 2004 the so-called Arabaci-Clan reportedly controlled the night clubs in Cologne's entertainment district, the Kölner Ringe, and his gang of bouncers reportedly befriended girls in order to exploit them as prostitutes."
The source is a video on You Tube, from WDR, that's a public (not private) German broadcaster. I've watched the 11 minutes. The text supports the claims of the article that gangs of bouncers controlled the Kölner Ringe disctict. However, although some names of the gang leaders are named, the name "Necati Arabaci" is not mentionened or I've missed it.
The article says "In 2008 he reputedly controled the "Colosseum" in Augsburg".
The source is "Augsburger Nachrichten" is a a local Augsburg newspaper, not a politically biased newspaper. It cites the chief of the local police, Klaus Bayerl, who says " "Die Gruppe um Arabaci bestimmt letztlich, was Sache ist.". This translates as "The Group around Arabici in the end controls what happens."
The article says "according to German police, several members of Arabaci's clan were sighted in Berlin, possibly trying to gain a foothold for the gang in the city's red-light scene".
The source is Focus (German magazine). It states "gesicherter aber sind die Erkenntnisse über eine Gruppe von Rhein und Ruhr. Dabei soll es sich um einen Ableger des berüchtigen Arabaci-Clans handeln, der über Jahre auf den Kölner Ringen und darüber hinaus das Rotlicht- und Schutzgeldwesen beherrscht hat. Ein Vertrauter des 2004 wegen Menschenhandels, Zuhälterei und Bildung einer Kriminellen Vereinigung zu neun Jahren Haft verurteilten und später in die Türkei abgeschobenen Clan-Chefs Necati „Neco“ Arabaci, 44, ist nach Informationen aus Polizeikreisen mehrfach im Bereich Oranienburger Straße polizeilich festgestellt worden.". This roughly says that a group, which is assumed to be a branch of the infamous Aragaci clan, was seen in Berlin (assumed and seen by police). It is not exactily said that they are possibly trying to gain a foothold for the gang in the city's red-light scene, but that the police assumes that there are gangs trying to gain foothold and that they are watching therefore the Arabaci people.
The article claims "During his detention in Germany, Arabaci reportedly plotted to kill the prosecutor, and hired the Albanian contract killer Erol from Duisburg. But the police had bugged his visiting room, and the prosecutor was given bodyguards and police protection". The article of the Kölner Stadtanzeiger supports these claims.
Thus, with one exection the claims of the article are supported by sources.
--Cyfal (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources support the claims of the article as I wrote above, but according to WP:PERP I don't think that someone who is sentenced to 10 years prison for racketeering is notable. --Cyfal (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Thank you for the translations, you put a lot of effort. At least sources translated correctly and so racism is no concern. In my view organized crime leaders in high populated cities deserves a space. yet we may always merge the content since the sources support the text.
  • Can you also check the links and press releases in forums and tell if anything is notable. Kasaalan (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per CSD:G7 (blanked by the author) and other concerns expressed below, primarily lacking notability. Materialscientist (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inevitable amen[edit]

Inevitable amen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable unreleased musical, PROD removed by creator - PROD reason was "Unnotable film for release in 2012. Can find almost no information on it". The comment in the article, "This musical has not yet been publicised", pretty much says it all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It also has a copyright statement at the bottom, but I can't find any evidence that it's copied from elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please note I am only a school boy and I wish my musical was publicised. I would really appreciate it if this page wasn't deleted because I have spent 3 years on this musical and I already have some interests in the musical being performed. Wickedomania —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedomania (talk • contribs) 08:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you well with your production, but Wikipedia can not be used for promotion - it is an encyclopedia, and only records things that are notable and which have been covered by reliable sources. Should your musical be released in the future and receive attention from mainstream sources, it will then become eligible for a Wikipedia article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hazel Dell, Washington#Schools. Author redirected in accordance with nomination and standard practice. Consensus if ever I saw one. Non-admin closure. Favonian (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah J. Anderson Elementary School[edit]

Sarah J. Anderson Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability requirements of WP:ORG. See also Wikipedia:Common outcomes#Education though I'm not necessarily quoting that as a reason. Recommend information in this article be merged with the article of the local community it serves. (Article was previously tagged with PROD but the author removed it so I'm listing the article here.) elektrikSHOOS 08:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names of us secret agencies[edit]

Names of us secret agencies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure what do with this article, but I think this information might be available elsewhere. Also, I'm citing WP:IINFO. elektrikSHOOS 08:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Dalton Motorcycle Solicitors[edit]

AfDs for this article:
White Dalton Motorcycle Solicitors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable company, despite the odd mention in the press. The article reads like an advert. As a UK-based biker I am aware of the company but certainly wouldn't consider them to be "the leader in this field of law" as the article assert (with a reference that doesn't support the leader claim). There are lots of similar companies in the UK and I can't see why this one is a) notable enough to have an article on wikipedia or b) any more notable than the other firms providing a similar service. Biker Biker (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I hadn't seen the (incredibly badly written) RBL Riders Branch article. I have now re-written it as that is definitely an article worth saving (unlike this one!). --Biker Biker (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice job on the re-write of an article that needed to be preserved - as you say, unlike this one! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The single substantive news story [44] is more about a UK phenomenon of law firms not generally advertising their specialty, in the opinion of the author, as US firms typically do (DUI, divorce, etc). Having a legal specialty is no more notable than having a medical specialty. The fact that not a single other media outlet since 2008 has found White Dalton notable enough to write about is quite telling. Two stories [45][46] with passing mention that they were a racing sponsor in 2009 don't make the subject notable, any more than purchasing advertising space anywhere else would be notable. --Dbratland (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slit eye[edit]

Slit eye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Not much here aside from a WP:DICDEF. Sources are in German and much of this seems to be original research. Gobonobo T C 07:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another racially pejorative article created by a banned editor with a history of dubious editing. RolandR (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDIC. If reliable sources can be found, put it on Wiktionary. Claritas § 20:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, we aren't a dictionary. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply a dictionary entry with no hope of expansion. p.s. We already have Anti-Japanese sentiment. Fences&Windows 23:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. "because Asians are successful business people" -- amusing to have a racist definition for a racist epithet. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - None of the reasons given above is a reason for deletion. "Sources are in German" is irrelevant, we welcome sources in any language. It is not a simple DICDEF, a sentence like this It emerged in popular German language usage in the 1950s and 1960s during the wave of immigration of socialist Vietnamese to socialist East Germany. (if sourced) is encyclopedic and not reasonable on a dictionary. That is "racially pejorative" is nonsense, the article documents a racist epithet but is not a racist article. "No hope of expansion" (apart again not being a reason to delete) is unproven -can be elaborated why?- and the term is not limited to Japanese people. Also, the term is mentioned to be used also by non-Germans in the same context (here it gives the name to a movie) also mentioned in books [47] , [48] , [49] , [50]. All of these are mentions, but document that an interest and discussion of the term exists. Here, here news articles dedicated to a notable related incident. --Cyclopiatalk 12:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Note that the sources currently cited in the article use the term Schlitzauge, they do not discuss it (see Use–mention distinction). Cyclopia's proposed sources do mention the term, but mainly in passing. The latter two news sources discuss a gesture, not the terms Schlitzauge or slit-eye. Cnilep (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dictionary definition of racist slang. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dictionary definition; not for Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly encyclopedic. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dewritech (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Speedy delete G12: The writing style is a giveaway as a copyvio; the fact the source isn't online is the reason it's probably survived. The source is this and similar publications. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of BattleMechs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of BattleMechs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory of BattleMechs. Completely unsourced and looking around, I cannot find sources (let alone independent sources) describing these individual fictional machines. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is non-notable, in-universe fancruft. SnottyWong spill the beans 21:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These notable games get reviews, and they always mention the new battlemechs. Cnet's editor review [52] for MechWarrior 3 for instance, states The various BattleMechs featured in Pirate's Moon - which include newly added mech chassis such as the imposing humanoid-shaped Atlas and the devastating Masakari - are all fully articulated and beautifully animated. They look, move, and even sound like the 50-ton tanks that they're supposed to be. If I do a Google news search for BattleMech and the name of one of them, in this case Masakari, I receive more detailed mention of it. [53] You can only read the article summaries though, unless you have a paid subscription to the news archives. Dream Focus 22:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability isn't inherited. Just because the games are notable (MechWarrior 3), it doesn't mean that BattleTechs they just mention are automatically notable. All you've gotten from that source is that Atlas is humanoid-shaped and that Masakari is "devastating." There's nowhere near adequate sourcing to write anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other series have lists like this, so why not Battletech? (Like I said last time) --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep The list is legit. It is of great importance to the series and shows the variation of chassis models that have occurred over the years. There is no serious reason for it to be removed.Mcelite (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn (I didn't even notice that at first). It is agreed that the article needs a new name, but there is no consensus on that yet. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet Seat Riser or Toilet Riser[edit]

Toilet Seat Riser or Toilet Riser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per the prodder, Baffle gab1978 (talk · contribs), who noted that this is original research and an unreferenced essay. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC) *Delete. Seriously? Speedy was declined on this? To say it violates WP:NOTHOWTO wouldn't be telling the half of it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Why is this even being discussed? It's unsalvageable to the point of being patent nonsense and I'm nominating it as such. C1k3 (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, It doesn't qualify as nonsense in the Wikipedia sense, as it's quite comprehensible. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rather than joining the delete pile-on I've turned it into a valid sourced stub. These devices are common for people with disabilities. Fences&Windows 16:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be happy with a merge (I'm not sure there's much more to say about them), and obviously a rename is needed. Fences&Windows 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the fantastic rewrite by Fences and windows. I suggest a rename to toilet seat riser or to toilet riser, which are plausible search terms. Cunard (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and rename to Toilet seat riser. The article still needs work, though, because it reads more like a trivia section. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fences and windows' rewrite with appropriate sources. No aspersions on the placer of the original speedy tag that I removed, as the old version was vastly inappropriate. Merge to Assistive technology would be okay, but (1) I think that there is enough here for a decent article, and (2) I think that even importing a stub-length paragraph into that article would overburden what is a quite general topic. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, rename to Toilet riser, which appears to be the more common term (and is capitalized per WP:MOS). - 2/0 (cont.) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TCPC Lan Party[edit]

TCPC Lan Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod with no explanation given. Non notable event that falls well short of meeting WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOСK–surrealism[edit]

MOСK–surrealism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A tendency in contemporary art. Total absence of references. At best non-notable; quite likely an hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Added a link to the Russian Wikipedia. Basically the same article and it has recently been flagged as unreferenced. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searches on the English and Russian terms don't seem to turn up anything beyond blogs and reuses of the Russian Wikipedia text. Nor does searching on "325072" (the founder apparently) provide anything that can underpin notability here. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N and WP:V. It's impossible to verify anything in the article through independent reliable sources. Claritas § 09:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although in cases of non-English art movements I'd like to err on the side of caution (the absence of English refs does not make something non-notable), the fact that it is unreferenced on the Russian Wiki is pretty damning. The only ref offered -- 1307 Magazine -- has no web presence so it is hard to verify this. This appears to be impossible to verify and there is no evidence this is not a hoax. freshacconci talktalk 14:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a not notable concept. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong comment 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by anonymous IP 166.191.181.238 [54] in seeking assistance with its improvement. ---- 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. SnottyWong comment 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of The Transformers characters. (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tornedron[edit]

Tornedron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced article about a character that appeared a single episode of The Transformers (TV series), non notable Rm994 (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RoundCon[edit]

RoundCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Someone prodded, stating that "Other then just the main website. This article has no other references and doesn't seem real notable.", but article creator removed PROD. Earlier deleted today as G11 but the current version doesn't look like advertising. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... Sorry morenooso... but still, it still doesn't seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize for earlier deleting your markup. I did not fully realize the importance of the notcie at the time. I have tried to make all of your recommended changes. Please let me know how else I can improve and update this listing. Thank you for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techknowteach (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything but false positives in a Google News Archive search, and the WaPo article linked doesn't even reference "RoundCon". Afraid it's an NN con, but no objection to merging the content somewhere per NNC. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Yahoo search of RoundCon shows that it gets tertiary coverage in anime and sci-fi type websites. Seeing as the article states it was started in 1985, I thought that asserted some notability. The 2009 convention got lots of hits because it appears that it was initially canceled and then rescheduled. I hoped that by tagging it with the notability and primary sources tags, somebody smarter than this bear could find some better references. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. The 1985 start date is not backed up by anything. I find that there has been no coverage found for a supposed 25-year-old convention very dubious. —Farix (t | c) 11:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the nominator, under which specific category is your nomination based? Notability is broad and needs a basis. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it would fall under either WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Though I personally think WP:ORG limits on local media is contrary to WP:GNG, which has no such limits. —Farix (t | c) 13:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The nominator needs to make this clear. The nominating comments, "doesn't seem real notable" are ambigous and unclear. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It could have been worded better, but that doesn't make it invalid. —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Didn't you read? I wrote that what the PROD said, it wasn't me who wrote that OK?. Anyway to me it fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. Anyway, although it says "prodded", In fact it originally said "Prodded by morenooso", but I changed that after Morenooso's comments. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original Prod. Phearson (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please allow this posting to remain. It was posted purely as an informational source. It is of the same nature as Dragon Con and Gen Con. These sites are allowed to remain. Please consider allowing this posting to stay active. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mswygert (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theory:101[edit]

Theory:101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hip-hop group, but not nominating for CSD as it appears to meet one criterion of WP:MUSIC (notable if they are a leader of music in a large certain area), But I could not find any reliable sources to support this, the name doesn't help either. Feel free to speedy delete as A7 though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood gender nonconformity[edit]

Childhood gender nonconformity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article Gender nonconformity already exists, and there is nothing to suggest that childhood gender nonconformity is notable as a unique subject. This article is certainly longer, and would appear to have more content, but considering the lack of citations, NPOV problems, lack of coherence, etc., a merge would be impractical, as there is little content to merge that meets Wikipedia's content standards. Calgary (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is decently written, and the subject itself has been mentioned in much more notable media than it's parent topic... why, I'm not sure, but almost every tv special/web article I've read regarding the subject has been almost exclusively on children. Although the article could be improved greatly, I believe it still belongs on Wikipedia. --khfan93 03:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs work, but it's a worthwhile topic, and there's content there to work with. There's been enough discussion specifically about gender-variant children (mostly about what to do with them) that it's worth keeping separate from the main article gender variance. --Alynna (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - two academic references with the subject matter in the title is enough for any concept to meet WP:GNG. Here are some more sources, just so that notability isn't doubted: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61][dead link]. Huge amount of academic coverage, and this nomination seems to be based solely on WP:RUBBISH. I've flagged the article for rescue, and I'll do some clean-up myself. Claritas § 10:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and rescue per Claritas. This topic is distict from the major article, and has been the subject of films, books, and scholarship. The article needs fixing, but is a good start. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong gab 21:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by User:Claritas in seeking assistance with its improvement. ---- 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG. SnottyWong gab 21:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click on Google news search at the top of the AFD [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-press+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Childhood+gender+nonconformity%22 and you see 16 results, all talking about this. Dream Focus 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lad (Australian subculture)[edit]

Lad (Australian subculture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see it is that different to the British one. Two non-reliable dictionary sources and one unknown reliability source don't give it much notability either. Also, it's very time specific - more than 10-20 years ago, Lad, in the Australian culture, just meant a boy. The-Pope (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, no valid deletion rationale offered, no delete votes standing. Bold non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granulifusus musasiensis[edit]

Granulifusus musasiensis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There isn't much info, and two of the sections are blanked out Mysteryman19 (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I believe that any species, whether extant or extinct, is notable. The existence of this species is easily verified through Google. The article requires expansion, not deletion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We call this type of article a stub and, per deletion policy we don't delete stubs that are capable of expansion. Even a cursory check turns up further published work about this species, such as the description in volume 134 of Archiv für Molluskenkunde. Articles do start this way, you know. Uncle G (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time[edit]

TV Episodes Considered The Greatest of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this article can be improved to remove its almost total reliance on original research. It's not encyclopedic as it stands and I don't believe it can be made so. Maccy69 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is simply no encyclopedic way to approach this article. Even with sources, this article could potentially be subject to POV. Much of the content in this article should be merged into the appropriate episode's article. --khfan93 02:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: we also have Films considered the greatest ever, which seems to have suffered similar problems, yet survived an AFD nearly four years ago. I'd think that that article might want to be put up for AFD as well; although it is not nearly as bad as this one, it is rather similar. But I am not going to nominate it myself, because I do not feel that strongly about that article at this point. --khfan93 02:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It would be impossible to say what episodes should be on the list, and to assume that TV Guide's "Best Episodes" is over equivalent status to Entertainment Weekly's "Best Episodes" would be like comparing apples to oranges. Their both fruit, but they taste different. Also, this page seems to be primarily a listing of TV Guide's favorite episodes of all time, so it's hardly fitting of the title "Episodes Considered the Best Ever" - unless you put "....by TV Guide".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as otheres have noted, it is nearly impossible to approach such a topic in a neutral, encyclopedic way, and it appears to primarily be based on the creators view and WP:OR attempt and bringing together various unrelated, uncomparable lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Axe this list. Original research, not encyclopedic at all, support merging some content to each episode's article (if there is one). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's original research, all right, but that can be fixed. Surely the 'best TV episodes ever' is something that has been written about in the lay press as well as the trade press. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whose list becomes the "ultimate" list? Is TV Guide's list better than anyone else's? What about The New York Post, or Entertainment Weekly, or Fangoria (if we're talking about horror related TV shows). It's too subjective. Any one list could contradict another, and we're not here to just repeat everyone's list on one page (that would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE). This is something best reserved for individual articles to have it pointed out that they made so-n-so's "best episodes" list.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that it's subjective doesn't stop us from having an article on it. Compare Films considered the greatest ever. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that it's subjective makes the title of the article almost impossible to be accurate. You'd never be able to accurately reflect "The Best Episodes", because everyone's list would be different. You cannot apply equal weight to all lists either. I do compare it to the other article, and the other article suffers from the same problem and should probably be deleted as well. Just because something can be sourced doesn't necessarily make it notable, or noteworthy enough to have its own article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The difference is that, unlike with film, lists of TV episodes are incredibly subjective, and given to enormous amounts of variance. This can be contrasted with film. It can be easily argued that if you were to ask 50 film critics to name the 10 greats films of all time, Citizen Kane would appear on almost 50 of those lists. Citizen Kane is one example of a film that is very, very widely considered the "greatest of all time." But I see no evidence to suggest the existence of similarly broad critical consensus regarding individual episodes of television. Although I wish such consensus existed, because it'd be very fun to have an article on this topic! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no objective inclusion criteria here. This might be OK as a category, but to put these together in one article is problematic, as the !voters above have observed. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Films considered the greatest ever makes a very credible effort to present a wide-ranging survey of respectable film polls in a cohesive manner. This article is nothing like it, and I'm surprised this wasn't put up for Speedy Delete as WP:ORIG. However, I do hope the author will not be scared off by the inexplicably stern tone of this AfD, but rather take the article back to the sandbox and work on it, using the Films article as a model. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a chance for it to become anything like Films considered the greatest ever (although that article could stand more sources), keep. Otherwise, delete because all the choices here seem to be the creator's own opinion. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to original research and bias problems. Saying that it was "unfortunate" that Friends′ The One With the Embryos missed an Emmy is not neutral. And saying that Buffy the Vampire Slayer′s Once More, With Feeling was "Emmy-award requested several times, but missed" makes no sense, because it would only have been eligible for an Emmy once, for the season when it aired, not "several times". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any way to base this article on something more substantial? I like the concept, because I think it wouldn't be bad to have some historic record of famous/great television shows due to the fact that it does allow future generations to have access to popular trends, but maybe we could add a few key facts that will make it more objective and less controversial. For example, could we call it "the most watched shows/episodes" or something, and then include numbers/statistics of how many people tuned in to watch these shows/episodes, and perhaps we could include a date/year/decade for these. The other option would be to have a top ten list of shows, and then just have people update it as new television shows come out that become another cultural phenomenon. Either way, Wikipedia is truly becoming a cultural phenomenon, so making this information accessible for the general public seems like a good idea.People bios (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's something like "Most watched" then you have to have an arbitrary cut-off limit, which will ultimately grow over time as you get people that like certain shows and feel that they should be on the list even if they don't meet the minimum. It would be even worse to have a "Top Tep list of shows", because of that very fact that you'd have to update it all the time. Wikipedia is about historics, it's not a TV guide. It isn't here to say, "this is what most people are watching today". The problem comes when you try and compare shows of yesteryears with ones of today. They don't mesh. More people own TVs (multiple ones) today than they did 20 years ago. It's unfair to compare episode numbers across timelines like that, and even doing it today you have to look at the networks themselves. Shows that appear on cable don't get as many viewers as primetime shows simply because the audience doesn't exist, not because the show isn't popular or well written. There are too many problems with such a list that it would be either impossible to maintain encyclopedically, or it would be impossible to get an accurate look at popularity or even reception. The page would just become an indiscriminate list of episodes that appeared on someone's top list of eps.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no necessary relationship between the most-watched episodes and the best episodes. If we put together a list of the most watched episodes of regular series in the United States (which is already discussed as part of List of most-watched television broadcasts anyway), we would have something like the M*A*S*H, The Fugitive, and Cheers finales, the episode of Dallas where they revealed who shot J.R., The Beatles' first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show ... and a second-season episode of The Beverly Hillbillies titled "The Giant Jackrabbit". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hmph. As a huge fan of Buffy, I am saddened to vote "delete" on any article proclaiming Once More, With Feeling one of the greatest TV episodes of all time. This is a point of view I wholeheartedly agree with. Nonetheless, there is, to my knowledge, no formal scholarly framework that truly exists for a canonical representation of individual TV episodes as the greatest of all time. This can be contrasted with a point raised earlier in this AfD regarding films. To my knowledge, such a scholarly framework does exist for the discussion of film. So, sadly, my vote is to delete. Also, it is worth pointing out that Once More, With Feeling is only the second greatest Buffy episode. Hush is easily the show's finest hour. That's the one I use to silence friends of mine who mock me for my Buffy fandom! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form because a similar article exists for film and I can easily see the need for an article for this subject. However, the article as of right now needs to be completely gutted as it's nearly entirely original research. It also needs to be renamed to a name that more follows regular naming conventions, such as List of television show episodes considered the greatest ever, Television show episodes considered the greatest ever, or suchlike. elektrikSHOOS 16:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted too that the article does attempt to use a source in some form, even if it wasn't properly cited. Many of the TV episodes listed in the table are also on TV Guide's List of 100 Greatest Television Episodes. This can count as a verifiable source for at least one list. I'm sure other lists like this. The similar article for movies bases its definition of what's considered a great movie not on original research but on established lists such as these - a new article for TV episodes could be constructed from similar lists. elektrikSHOOS 16:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial original research. The only source that the author used is TV guide. Tavix |  Talk  21:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it is possible that this list just might be too volatile for a Wikipedia article...People bios (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above arguments. Horrible point-of-view probems and original research. Maybe there is a respectable Films considered the greatest ever type article to be written and maybe not, but it is clear that this is not it. Reyk YO! 23:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are appropriate; TV Guide is a suitable source for this, and other well known publications can be added. Not OR -- OR would be compiling a list based on our own judgements, not reporting what major sources have said, as is done here, is the way all Wikipedia articles are prepared (or at least ,the way they ought to be.) DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Candy bars[edit]

Comparison of Candy bars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is the page really necessary? Also, the page is unsourced. Battleaxe9872 Talk 02:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#OR and WP:NN. A smaller version may be able to find it's home at the Candy bar article, but I am not 100% sure that would even be helpful/needed. --khfan93 01:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Big Time Rush episodes. Spartaz Humbug! 05:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Time Mansion[edit]

Big Time Mansion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. Contested PROD. Including all unsourced episodes on List of Big Time Rush episodes.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out they're all unsourced, and the rest are listed below. :(   — Jeff G. ツ 05:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The episodes do not need their own articles for any reason, they just re-iterate information on the episode list, with nothing more valuable added. CloversMallRat (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- sourceless plot summary. Zero useful content. Reyk YO! 08:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Big Time Rush episodes. While I'm not a fan of the show, since I personally think of boybands as a plague on the music industry, these articles have more detail than the existing list. Considering the trend against articles on TV episodes, I'd rather see the details preserved in the history than completley eliminated. ----DanTD (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zathura (software)[edit]

Zathura (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software, even the author of the software says that there are no reliable sources that have written about it. Deleted as spam, then restored, still no evidence of why it is notable and the author's comments on the talkpage consist of personal attacks and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Terrillja talk 22:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a side note I cannot see any personal attacks and the author seem to have a long history with wikipedia (more than 3000 contributions). The software though is in preliminary stage and probable not qualify for an article yet. Pxtreme75 (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from article creator, The member Terrillja nominating the article for deletion has been out for this article since its very inception, first he added delete due to notability/references and demanded notability by world reknown dead-tree magazines such as PC-world on the talk page. However it is highly unlikely that it would be written about by journalist of big media as the application lacks the required audience to be profitable to publish in a dead-tree magazine simply because is it a Linux application. I believe that the application has gained a high enough notability by the communities of people which uses a Linux distribution that has a 'keep it simple' philosophy such as Archlinux, Slackware, etc. to validate for an article on wikipedia. I added third party references which shows that the application has indeed been noticed by people in the Linux communities and removed the delete request due to lack of notability/reference. However Terrillja was not satisfied and added a delete due to spam tag. The article is still in its very inception(I am slow) and at the time of deletion the article had two sentences, of which one was entirely factual and the other was factual but written in an advertising fashion. One administrator saw fit to delete the whole article rather than correct the erroneous wording of the sentence and I appealed to other administrator. Lord Metroid (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I took it here because I still think that it's non-notable software. When it was deleted as spam, it was clearly advertising and POV material. It doesn't have to be long to be spam. For example, an article that states that John Doe is the best runner that has ever lived and has won every race he ever entered is spam. You're taking this as some sort of attack on you. It's nothing against you, but you chose a poor subject to write about. As for references, you have chosen one listing on Linux and another that is in violation of WP:ELNO, as a commercial download site. As you can see, the sources have hardly alleviated my concerns.--Terrillja talk 14:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage is lacking reliables sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (although likely Delete based on what I can gather so far) - I would like to conclude that Zathura is also notable but so far, I don't see evidence for that. Quote from the forum topic: "Notabilitity", such a ridiculus policy!, if that is your view, why attack those who understand and follow the policy? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of all information out there. Your argument on Evince doesn't hold because Evince gains notability due to being part of the GNOME project and inclusion in well-known Linux distributions such as Ubuntu. - Simeon (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PingGadget[edit]

PingGadget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see sufficient notability for this web services and it doesn't have third-party references that convince me it's notable. Shadowjams (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found several reliable sources on the company. The notability of the web service is also sufficient. Socialmaven 09:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't appear to pass notability requirements. As it is, only a single reference on the article actually refers to the subject and it's only an interview on technorati. Just not been around long enough to generate secondary coverage yet. Shell babelfish 19:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Formspring.me. Article has already been redirected and no consensus exists to delete. (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formspring[edit]

Formspring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The original name of Formstack is not notable enough to require a disambiguation page. This page should be deleted, and the formspring.me article moved to this name, as formspring.me is now called simply Formspring (see the new logo and page titles on the site).

The Formstack article should be linked in a note at the top - "This article is about the question and answer service..." -- Love, Smurfy 20:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISOM[edit]

ISOM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely non-notable, thus unable to be referenced.  Propeng   Talk  20:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can not find any sources other than Wikipedia articles and mirrors. There is nothing to establish notability. Also not a deletion arguement but the original author appears to be the main developer, same name. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 06:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Rita[edit]

Rotten Rita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:BIO. Was never in a Warhol film (thus cannot be classified as a Warhol Superstars), and was not an entertainer of any kind as far as I can tell. Subject was basically just a drug dealer who hung around the Factory for a period, and was known for his friendships with a few notable Warhol Superstars (WP:NOTINHERITED). Pinkadelica♣ 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Pacific Flight Training[edit]

Asia Pacific Flight Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable flight school. Extensive searches for sources turned up only school website, school Facebook page, school press releases and non-notable listings in directories, etc. Article is essentially promotional spam. Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yup I found those - the school has an active PR machine and those are just reprinted school press releases, no actual notable coverage. - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Star and the New Straits Times are Malaysia's two largest newspapers. They do not reptrint press releases. Do you have any basis for saying that other than guesswork? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that you can add some reliable refs to establish notability then please do go ahead and do so. The AFD process results in articles either being improved or deleted and that makes for a better encyclopedia either way. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There have been a few articles of this type deleted in recent months, all for the same reason; they are run-of-the-mill flying schools with nothing to distinguish them from the thousands of other such schools around the world, except someone involved with each school (in at least one case the owner of the school) thought it would be a good idea to start a Wikipedia article. YSSYguy (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge useable content into Sultan Ismail Petra Airport article. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability has been clearly demonstrated above by Mkativerata. Merging to the airport article certainly doesn't seem to be a good idea, as, as far as I can see, the relationship between the two is that of customer and supplier, which would be a very strange reason for merging. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smothered[edit]

Smothered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - no independent reliable sources indicate that this individual episode of this individual series has any notability separate from the series. As the information at the GA Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1) is more comprehensive and since "Smothered" is an unlikely search term for anyone seeking that article, there is nothing to merge and no need for a redirect. See previous discussions here and here for other episodes of this series, which resulted in deletion for lack of reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with Otto on this one (good to see you, by the way, one of the first Wikipedians I talked to when I came here in '07). This one dates from the TV Guide days of 2005, when we had lots of biographies of TV characters and plot summaries of TV episodes, before people realized that fictional people and events weren't being held to the same standard as real people and historical events. I'm sure there's an LAO Wikia out there somewhere. Doink-doink! Mandsford 15:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't need to happen for purposes of this nomination, but I am reviewing the other episode articles and if they seem non-notable I do plan to AFD them. Otto4711 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep, prefer Merge All - This article and all the others seem extravagantly detailed yet individually unnotable (disclaimer: I haven't looked through them all). "Smothered" and the others I've looked at certainly don't merit encyclopedic entries under their episode names, but their information should be kept: it seems to have been collated over a long period of time and includes many wikilinked writers, directors, etc. (and many more who may someday be). Yes, "Smothered" could indeed be deleted based purely on notability, but in the interest of maintaining the integrity of a body of (presumably) valuable data that Wikipedians have put together, I would say we shouldn't delete just one piece of what is clearly a structural whole. Unfortunately the List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes is way too big & unwieldy already to absorb all these pages, so a Merge vote is not viable. I would suggest that new pages, like List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes (Season 1) and so on, be created and then all these articles could be merged into their respective homes. For the record, I have no interest in such a project myself (or the TV show for that matter!) but if anyone were to take on the task, I would fully support deletion of all the pages by means of merger. I will watch this page and gladly change my vote. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is nothing in this article that needs to be merged anywhere, as none of it is referenced and the episode is covered in sufficient detail in Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1), the GA-class article linked to in the nominating statement, which includes links to all of the relevant personnel. That someone has written plot summary articles for every episode of this series with no regard for whether individual episodes are independently notable is not a valid reason for keeping this article. There is no "structural whole" here as two episode articles from this season have already been deleted because they are not notable. Otto4711 (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete - Sorry! If only I'd left out the word "episodes" when I made my dummy page name, I would have seen these Season pages. You're right, the information all belongs in there (and seems like it already is). I'll support all other nominations on this topic. SteveStrummer (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. there is an admin with a wikisource account looking at this so no need to reanswiki, they can do it themselves Spartaz Humbug! 07:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern University Charter[edit]

Northwestern University Charter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This document in itself does not seem to meet the requirement of notability, and in itself would not seem to meet the requirements of Wikipedia.

This document may be able to hosted at Wikisource, and contributor has been contacted directly to engage in the discussion, though in its existing form, it is not suitable for transfer. billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect — to Northwestern University. Gosox(55)(55) 15:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either transwiki to Wikisource or just delete. Full text original documents do not normally belong in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Not to transwiki in this form, I can recover it as necessary if that is required for transfer with my enWS admin hat on billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand what the problem with transwikiing this is, but it doesn't make much difference to me. I have changed my recommendation to "delete" to help this AfD to be closed faster. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki; this is just the sort of content that Wikisource likes, and it's just the sort that we don't. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Batman (1989 film). NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Eckhardt[edit]

Max Eckhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Character that has small role in one otherwise big film. No refs, no evidence of notability. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As an unsourced BLP, with only delete !votes.. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahan Ruiz[edit]

Abrahan Ruiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can not find any reliable third party sources independent of the subject to establish WP:N. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Speedy deletion was suggested under WP:A7 1.5 years ago but request was removed by the original author without comment. The author's only contribution to Wikipedia is this article. J04n(talk page) 12:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Movable West[edit]

A Movable West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NM. One local newspaper article = doesn't meet notability criteria. Side note: Users Ejstone, Estoner13, and Es080994 are presumably the same person. APK whisper in my ear 07:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icon Sport[edit]

Icon Sport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a non-notable MMA organization with no reliable sources. The organization appears to be defunct since they haven't had a show in 2 years. It is not listed at WP:MMANOT and fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA organizations. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is permanent, not temporary. Icon Sport is also part of the EliteXC ownership group, so under notable hands. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unreferenced article that doesn't show notability. According to WP:MMANOT and Paralympiakos's comment above, this means the organization was part of a defunct second-tier MMA organization. I don't see the notability. 131.118.229.82 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into ProElite (assuming someone finds sources for the content). I was really on the fence as to keep or delete. There are Google hits about the promotion, their events, and their relation to ProElite. However, I'm unsure they are notable enough to be given their own article. The ProElite article is pretty stubby in itself; therefore, I feel sourced information about Icon Sport could be added as a subsection to the ProElite article in attempt to improve them both. (As an aside, I think if someone wants to take on this task they should consider doing the same to Rumble on the Rock and possibly King of the Cage. The first is definitely stubby and deletable, the second is much on the fence.) --TreyGeek (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If King of the Cage, another subgroup of Elite, was listed in WP:MMANOT and this one wasn't, the logical conclusion is that this one is even less notable. I'm also getting tired of unsourced articles. However, if this article can be reliably sourced, I'm OK with a merger into ProElite. Astudent0 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the article gains some reliable references that clearly demonstrate notability. At the moment, I do not see any references provided at all; just a few external links. Janggeom (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo/Tour EP[edit]

Demo/Tour EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-released demo CD-R; Google shows nothing substantial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of Death (Sodom album)[edit]

Victims of Death (Sodom album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently self-released demo without significant coverage —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hart: Superhero[edit]

Alan Hart: Superhero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Webseries with no claim of meeting WP:N in article. Not speedying because article was previously prodded by another editor and prod contested. Gsearch turns up 14 non-wiki hits for title, none of which show a whiff of notability. Gnews search comes up empty. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Can find almost no information on this. Possible conflict of interest. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucille Lambert[edit]

Lucille Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, simply an NN WP:BLP article. The sources speak for themselves. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lambert appears to have gotten some coverage as a model. Obviously, this article is unsatisfactory as it now stands, but it would be great if someone who had some expertise here took a look before we scrapped it Vartanza (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She seems to have held also a role in a movie in 1942. [66] Not saying that that minor role made her notable, but if you are Miss California, for a year, that makes you the most beautiful woman of California, should be notable in my opinion.--Sulmues Let's talk 21:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Swadel[edit]

Marc Swadel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Desperately needs cleanup for formatting, IMHO too poor quality for WP. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like a poorly formatted resume with the intention to get Mr Swadel more work. A search reveals lots of resume type listings (LinkedIn, IMDB, ZoomInfo, TheBigIdea, etc.) and some appearences on film crews, but no substantial coverage in reliable sources. However, article makes unreferenced claims of things that could confer a little notability (though probably still not enough to meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE). Astronaut (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. Article has existed for 5 years but still no sources. Read like promotion. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could be copyright violation. Author explained on the Dutch deletion page (AfD log) for the 2nd of July 2010 that the text of this article was "not by me" but taken from a 1933 "jubilee edition" (i.e. a book). I suggest you wait to see what happens to the Dutch version (nl:Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V.). This Dutch version was initially nominated as "promotional" and "neutrality disputed". ErikvanB (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for relisting the debate to generate a more thorough discussion. I have also added links in Talk:Patent and Talk:Intellectual property to the same end. --Edcolins (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historical it's interesting how patent rights created a new profession. Nethertheless it requires more independent references and should be linked in patent attorney#History. Promotional phrases can be deleted and the number of todays employees is irrelevant. --Swen (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How could this reason "Historical it's interesting how patent rights created a new profession" support keeping this particular article? The notability claim was not "the first patent agency ever". The notability claim was "... oldest, still active patent agency in the world ..." and was only supported by a primary source. Since extraordinary claims require reliable, independent sources, I have removed this notability claim. --Edcolins (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all your comments. I have brought the English version into conformity with the Dutch version, based on comments that I received on both versions. The article now features independent links and any non-balanced phrases have been removed. Rmelchior (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historic major firm in their profession. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bless the Fallen[edit]

Bless the Fallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If they meet WP:BAND, it would not seem to be by much. They do have (or the article claims they have) two albums on the Crash lablel. Is Crash one of the "the more important indie labels"? I don't know, but they do have a Wikipedia article, which lists five bluelinked bands in their stable. On the other hand, that article states that Bless the Fallen is a former Crash client, for whatever that's worth. If the article was more fleshed out might help us make a decision , but it's not. Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maru doll[edit]

Maru doll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Toy which may not meet WP:GNG. I rejected a proposed deletion on this because due to the large number of industry awards won the product (see [67]) it would be surprising if there wasn't any independent coverage, but all I can find is the company's website and press releases. Claritas § 09:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jennifer Hudson (album). Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC) ===VIKAS RAI===VIKAS RAI[reply]

Giving Myself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NSONGS songs which have charted do not automatically get an article. Independent articles should not be created for songs which do not have enough information and independent coverage to create a detailed and sizeable article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The fact that there is next to no 3rd party coverage hasn't been addressed. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

York Boarding Schools Group[edit]

York Boarding Schools Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. "York Boarding Schools Group" excluding Wikipedia gets a whopping 10 google hits. B (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate notability per our guidelines, next to no 3rd party coverage. Most sources provided have been put in question too. There seems to be a larger issue with the editor that created this article - but here is not the place for it. Rehevkor ✉ 20:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if you've got GHits, great, then lets work on improving this list of mostly apparently notable schools. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on what are you concluding that the schools themselves are "apparently notable"? Only three of them are referenced. --B (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems notable to me - its been around for years and everyone locally knows it and the schools in it. Looking at the editors above - do any of them have local knowledge? And don't come back with wiki jargon or reliance on policies - if you don't know the area - why stick your nose in - wiki is all the worse for it! Is wiki about providing accurate information or getting your view of the world on by means of finagling via policies? Get Keith [Keith_D] in on this discussion - he knows what he's talking about re all things Yorkshire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.163.33 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I no longer have any interest in this. I tried to put up one page in 2009 and received abuse and hate emails from wiki users. So I left it a year. I tried again to put up a page in good faith in 2010, followed all the policies, and this time received hate emails, abuse and false allegations. Charming. So I'll leave you all to it and have another look in 2011. I have to say the behaviours of certain editors only re-enforces the outside world opinion of wikipedia as a closed shop run by warring editors who simply seek to uphold their own fiefdoms and points of view. I will not be responding to any more hate messages which I have no doubt will be posted ... carpe diem! (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You received hate emails? That is pretty serious accusation. Rehevkor ✉ 12:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing "hate emails" means "being asked to stop spamming links to this school" [68]. --B (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's said he's not interested and you're still attacking?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.163.33 (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking? What? Rehevkor ✉ 14:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice to recreation if someone finds evidence of notability. Business like this makes me think the article is a bad faith contribution. Normally I would try harder to find evidence of notability in this case, but I'm afraid I have better things to do than clean up after someone with an apparent single-purpose agenda and absolutely no intention of of reaching consensus. 88.110.163.33 (assuming you're not a sock-puppet), the only way that Wikipedia can provide accurate information is to properly cite the information in reliable independent sources. We cannot rely on assertions of "I've got local knowledge, honest", certainly not from editors with no reliable history of contributions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If I am right in thinking that this is an association of schools, it seems to me that it should be notable. I would be happier if the article were expanded to say a little more of what the group did. I do not believe it to be a school-proprietor as some of those listed are clearly disparate from each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the group's own webpage is horribly vague as to what it actually is. If it's a group that actually owns and governs these seventeen schools, then, yes, I agree it makes sense to have an article. If, however, it's simply an association that these schools are affiliated to, I'm not so sure. The group's association with seventeen schools would certainly count as an argument in its favour, but IMO that's not enough to overcome the zero coverage in Ghits or Gnews. I would usually investigate this further, and I will change my !vote if someone else choose to do this, but I'm not prepared to put my time into protecting articles posted and promoted by people is such an aggressive manner. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it were conceded that all or most of these schools were notable (which it is not), notability is not inherited. A person might be notable, but an organization to which he belongs (eg, a community organization) might be non-notable. A notable company might be wholly or partially owned by a non-notable holding company. Thomas Road Baptist Church is an obviously notable church, but its local association, the Lynchburg Baptist Association, is not notable. --B (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Umbrella group in the UK means some kind of affiliation - the singe nn reference says its to promote the schools. So itsa trade organisation that noone had written about. That means its NN so it goes. Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Spartaz no indication of significant coverage so fails WP:ORG. Codf1977 (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Leyden (Golfer)[edit]

Bill Leyden (Golfer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the accounts of his battle experiences in the book Brotherhood of Heroes and other works focusing on the experiences of the "common soldier", he doesn't seem to meet our notability requirements as a military figure. He doesn't show up at all in a search for past and present pro golfers at the PGA Tour website, so notability derived from golfing seems unverifiable as well. He seems to be a guy whose eyewitness testimony has been found useful by writers recounting the war in the Pacific, but I don't think that's enough to support a biographical article. Deor (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persian anthology of world poetry[edit]

Persian anthology of world poetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. The manager of the website has been subject of a deletion process. An admin have to delete that page.Farhikht (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ettelaat doesn't give significant coverage, and I can't find anything else, although a Persian search would be appreciated. Claritas § 09:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_10&oldid=1142641412"